I don't think intentional, and while it is the opposite, negligence is the gray area that applies here. Kind of like if you are speeding in your car, lose control and kill someone. Did you do it intentionally? No, but your lack of care while operating a vehicle resulted in someone else's death.
You've accidentally but correctly described a type of negligence, termed "negligence per se." It's a real legal application and yes it generally is intentional. If not intentional, then generally accidental. We could go deep in the analogy weeds on what the speed limit was, what were the driving conditions, actual knowledge of the law, the car conditions, how fast over the limit, was there culpability by the victim who might have been herself, being careless or negligent, etc.
Without getting deep in the weeds on silly analogies, nobody could reasonably believe Baldwin didn't know the inherent dangers of what he was doing. Pointing a gun at someone without legal justification, is a crime. Consent to that behavior, might mitigate his situation. Maybe. Maybe not. She might have granted consent to point an UNLOADED gun at her, and pull the hammer and trigger. That consent would presumably be withdrawn if she was fully informed the gun was loaded.
Analogy of that is that a football player gives consent to being legally hit during the play. That consent is withdrawn when the whistle blows, he's out of bounds, etc. Then it's an assault.
www.law.cornell.edu
"Means negligence in itself. In a
torts case, a
defendant who violates a
statute or regulation without an excuse is automatically considered to have
breached her
duty of care and is therefore
negligent as a matter of law. As a result, the only thing that must be proven at
trial is whether the violation was the
cause in fact and
proximate cause of the
plaintiff's injury. According to
Restatement (Third) of Torts §14, an actor is negligent per se if she violates a statute that is designed to protect against the type of accident or harm caused by her conduct, and the
plaintiff is someone the statute is designed to protect.
Restatement (Third) of Torts §15 lays out exceptions where an actor’s violation of a statute is excused and not considered negligent. The exceptions include cases where the statute is unclear, the actor exercised reasonable care in attempting to comply with the statute, or the actor’s noncompliance with the statute resulted in less harm than if she complied. The most common application of negligence per se is traffic violations, where the driver is automatically considered negligent for violating the traffic code."
